In NY Times Magazine interview, regretful Obama admits his policies are failures

In the upcoming New York Times Magazine interview, Barack Obama has admitted that his policies are failures. More specifically, he has lamented his embarrassing failure surrounding his deficit-increasing stimulus, their shovel-ready projects, and the painfully insufficient amount of "tax cuts" that he included in Americans’ paychecks (so small, no one felt them). In the interview in New York Magazine, a liberal reporter spent an hour with Obama, talking to him about his first two years in office, and, unexpectedly, Obama sounded very introspective, defeated and full of regret. His self-defeating comments are good news for Republicans who instantly seized on choice quotes to release uncomplimentary press releases that pointed out Obama’s hypocrisy. At the same time, some Democrats were left feeling even more frustrated than ever, essentially complaining that Obama had made it even harder for them in the already adverse midterm election climate.The man was a failure from the day he was born. This is...news?

The way that this interview should be interpreted is that Obama sees the writing on the wall; the bigger question is, Why did it take him only until three weeks before the midterms to admit what the majority of Americans already knows? In fact, prominent conservatives and even non-biased analysts have been pointing out the absolute failure of Obama’s economic policies for the better part of a year now. The interview is noteworthy for its sheer contrast with Obama’s public statements on his economic policies—like when he’s busy pumping up a crowd of masochistic, hardcore Obama voters who are actually cheering him as he’s busy lying to them about the apparent "effectiveness" of shovel-ready projects. At this point in time, Obama clearly sees that his party is done for, so it’s no more use to continue being so shameless. Still, the president refuses to concede on all points.Most liars can't admit their lies. Obama being who he is, is a typical example.

Obama’s most implicating admission comes on the issue of the failed, shovel-ready projects that he was always dishonestly touting as ways to get the US economy humming again quickly. Shovel-ready projects are basically infrastructure projects that are funded by taxpayer money in Obama’s debacle of a "stimulus" bill, with the incorrect idea that giving all that money to local governments can jump-start quick construction activities that turn the economy around. In the interview, Obama finally concedes that "there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects." Gee, Mr. President, do you want a reward for finally acknowledging that which most of the country has already been on your case about for the longest time?! It’s too bad Obama didn’t have this way-too-late epiphany BEFORE he actually squandered the hard-earned, taxpayer money in "shovel-ready projects" that are now verified as a big failure.Saw this coming when this snake oil salesman was on the campaign trail. I could smell the bullshit from here.

Obama’s not contrite to the point, however, where Americans can really be sure that he’s learned the lessons of his discredited and ignorant economic policies, because a big regret of his seems to be merely that he’s seen as a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. Only seen as a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat?! Mr. Obama, you are totally a tax-and-spend liberal Democrat! The fact that Obama seems to be more preoccupied in this interview with how he looks to voters—while still denying that he is in fact the worst of tax-and-spend liberal Democrats—still shows that he thinks he’s correct in his underlying ideology and approach. That’s really sick if you think about it, simply because Obama suffers from more than a messaging problem: He is in fact a failed president whose policies on the economy have worsened conditions for everyone in the US. The empirical evidence backs that up.It's always all about him, and not about the people he screwed over. Another professional victim.

Obama ends the interview—unbelievably in his incomparable arrogance—by still deluding himself into thinking that time will be kind to him and that once people start seeing the imaginary "benefits" of his policies, they will realize he’s been good for the US. What??! Clearly, Obama only watches MSNBC and reads the New York Times to come up with such a warped forecast. In reality, it is only G.W. Bush’s record that Americans will look kindly upon in due time; Obama’s, however, they will continue to condemn for generations.They'll take one look at this complete jerk and wonder how someone this stupid ever made it to the Oval Office.

Pres. Bush is, and was, a better man than this posturing fool could ever hope to be.

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 02:38 AM

I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

The data is all there.

only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.

Jobs are still being lost in the midst of the recession but everyone knows our capitalist system runs on boom and bust cycles, exponetially so for the more acutely aware, and we are in one of these as our housing and credit bubbles have popped.

Yes jobs are being lost, (and no I'm no raving Obamaniac, I'm not voting for Democrats this november) but the fact is that the stimulus has helped create jobs and I see many working-class people like construction workers working on infrastructure projects around my city paid for by the stimulus act so it is working.

I have much beef with Obama but the stimulus has been a good deal so far.

Sonnabend

10-14-2010, 02:43 AM

I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

The data is all there.

only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.

Uh...no.

Jobs are still being lost in the midst of the recession but everyone knows our capitalist system runs on boom and bust cycles, exponetially so for the more acutely aware, and we are in one of these as our housing and credit bubbles have popped.

Owing to liberal policies forcing banks to give home loans to people who couldnt afford them in a million years.

Yes jobs are being lost, (and no I'm no raving Obamaniac, I'm not voting for Democrats this november) but the fact is that the stimulus has helped create jobs and I see many working-class people like construction workers working on infrastructure projects around my city paid for by the stimulus act so it is working.

You do not borrow your way out of poverty and you do not spend your way out of debt.

I have much beef with Obama but the stimulus has been a good deal so far.

It, like you and Obama, are all failures.

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 02:53 AM

Uh...no.

The data is all there. You can ignore it all you want, but you can't claim it wasn't willful ignorance.

Owing to liberal policies forcing banks to give home loans to people who couldnt afford them in a million years.

And greedy wallstreet capitalist trading that risked trillions of dollars on the failure of these loans. It wasn't the failure of the loans that caused the recession, it was the enormous piles of capital deliberately placed on top of these bad loans with the expectation of failure and the subsequent avalanche which made a few bankers enormously rich while the tax payers picked up the slack to preserve our precious capitalist system. Both parties are to blame for this and guess what, these notions of "liberal" and "conservative" are just imaginary constructions invented by corporate elites to get working class Americans like you and I to fight over so we won't unite.

You do not borrow your way out of poverty and you do not spend your way out of debt.

A government's finances are in no way comparable to household finances. Sometimes massive government spending can help poverty and sometimes borrowing can pull us out of future debt (if that money is invested wisely).

Debt isn't a bad thing. Anyone who buys a house knows this. Excessive debt can be bad, but that's why we should be taxing the wealthy.

Sonnabend

10-14-2010, 03:04 AM

Debt isn't a bad thing. Anyone who buys a house knows this. Excessive debt can be bad, but that's why we should be taxing the wealthy.

The wealthy create the jobs, you fool.

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 04:57 AM

Small business owners are wealthy?

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 05:00 AM

Large corporations already have an advantage with being able to buy politicians to get legislation passed that helps their bottom line, also they have an advantage in contrlling major institutions like the media.

Small businessses are where we should be looking. Small business provide jobs for millions of Americans and they offer competition against large corporatons. Small businesses have a hard time competing against those who disproportionately benfit from the status quo (which they actively sustain) so we should be working to help small business growth, and we can do this by cutting small business taxes while increasing taxes on the large corporations and the very wealthy.

Sonnabend

10-14-2010, 06:36 AM

Small business owners are wealthy?

Yes. Small business people own shops and property and employ people

Large corporations already have an advantage with being able to buy politicians to get legislation passed that helps their bottom line, also they have an advantage in contrlling major institutions like the media.

Large corporations employ more people. Make business too expensive for them and they move offshore, and relocate to where they can make money and not be taxed out of existence.

And Americans become unemployed as a result.

Al this is, Wei, is you wanting other peoples money you never worked for a day in your life.

Simple.

The "very wealthy" already pay taxes on just about everything. What you want is for the state to take all they own and hand it over to others, whether they are willing to or not.

The word for this is dictatorship.

Constitutionally Speaking

10-14-2010, 06:46 AM

I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

The data is all there.

only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.

Jobs are still being lost in the midst of the recession but everyone knows our capitalist system runs on boom and bust cycles, exponetially so for the more acutely aware, and we are in one of these as our housing and credit bubbles have popped.

Yes jobs are being lost, (and no I'm no raving Obamaniac, I'm not voting for Democrats this november) but the fact is that the stimulus has helped create jobs and I see many working-class people like construction workers working on infrastructure projects around my city paid for by the stimulus act so it is working.

I have much beef with Obama but the stimulus has been a good deal so far.

EVERY SINGLE ONE of those TEMPORARY jobs that have been created, come at the EXPENSE of two or three PERMANENT jobs in the private sector.

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 06:58 AM

Yes. Small business people own shops and property and employ people

But they are not wealthy. Even by the Obama standard of Rich, not all small business owners make over $250,000 a year, and even if they do, it's only income above that amount which is taxed at a higher rate. So a small business household that pulls in $300,000 a year isn't going to have that $300,000 taxed at a higher rate as every Republican politician wants you to believe, they're only going to have the $50,000 above the $250,000 mark taxed at a higher rate. Even for successful small business owners, this will only afffect a small portion of their income.

For large companies however, where individuals are bringing home tens of millions a year, they have a little bit more to spare than a small business owner and frankly they have the power to coerce our government to bend to their will so we should be fighting for small business owners and workers, along with middle class families, not for the wealthy who already own most of the nation and all of our politicians.

Large corporations employ more people. Make business too expensive for them and they move offshore, and relocate to where they can make money and not be taxed out of existence.

And Americans become unemployed as a result.

Oh right and where are they going to go? To other industrialized countries that actually provide their workers with a decent minimum wage and guaranteed benefits such as vacation time and maternity leave? You're out of your mind if you think foreign labor is cheaper, unless you're only talking about the cheapest low skilled labor.

Besides, it doesn't even matter because our economy is not manufacturing based anymore, that's been phased out over the last 40 years. We are a service and information based economy now, and while much of this can be outsourced (telephone service and online transactions), the vast majority of service labor in the United States cannot be outsourced because it requires a person being physically present (such as bank tellers or retail, which are some of the fastest growing job markets)

Al this is, Wei, is you wanting other peoples money you never worked for a day in your life.

Simple.

Tell me more about how you imagine my life. I was born with a silver, no, platinum spoon in my mouth from my wealthy parents who were given all of the benefits of the United States government during their time. Oh yes they got the good end of the deal and I was born onto a silk pony and rode directly into the top 3 Ivy League schools where I joined an elite society which summoned the ghost of Marx because for some reason my wealth and easy life has turned me into a raving commie. Yes it all makes sense now.

The "very wealthy" already pay taxes on just about everything.

When you own over half of the wealth in the nation, even low taxes will provide most of the tax revenue.

what you want is for the state to take all they own and hand it over to others, whether they are willing to or not.

The word for this is dictatorship.

Not quite. I'd be happy with significant raising of taxes on the very top, the top 10% and the top 1%, these few people hold so much wealth that their assets alone could entirely pay off the entire US debt (which seems like an unsolvable monster to so many people).

Now I don't realistically see seizing all of their assets as a viable option, but we need to realize how much wealth they really have. No one in their entire social circle is going to miss a single 5-star meal if their taxes are significantly increased.

With that money we could lower the deficit, sustain social security for our seniors, increase funding and oversight for medicare, provide a medicare-for-all system as an option for anyone who doesn't want a private corporate health care plan, we could rebuild our national infrastructure for the 21st century (we are being left behind by most other nations) and in the process create millions of jobs.

so much could be done but the very wealthy own the media, own both political parties, own the airwaves (edit: and frankly they own most of our minds) and they're doing everything they can to frantically funnel as much money upwards while our economic system collapses on the rest of us.

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 07:01 AM

EVERY SINGLE ONE of those TEMPORARY jobs that have been created, come at the EXPENSE of two or three PERMANENT jobs in the private sector.

Where do you get the figure/idea that somehow providing a construction job for a worker fixing a highway is going to steal multiple other jobs from anyone?

Sonnabend

10-14-2010, 07:25 AM

Not quite. I'd be happy with significant raising of taxes on the very top, the top 10% and the top 1%, these few people hold so much wealth that their assets alone could entirely pay off the entire US debt (which seems like an unsolvable monster to so many people)The current deficit is in the TRILLIONS. Nice try.

Now I don't realistically see seizing all of their assets as a viable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable) option, but we need to realize how much wealth they really have. No one in their entire social circle is going to miss a single 5-star meal if their taxes are significantly increased. What they have, is theirs, and no one else's, and if the state decides that the government has the right to take what is not theirs without their consent thats dictatorship.

With that money we could lower the deficit, sustain social security for our seniors, increase funding and oversight for medicare, provide a medicare-for-all system as an option for anyone who doesn't want a private corporate health care plan, we could rebuild our national infrastructure for the 21st century (we are being left behind by most other nations) and in the process create millions of jobs. Ah yes the total welfare state where the government is the answer to everything.

so much could be done but the very wealthy own the media, own both political parties, own the airwaves (edit: and frankly they own most of our minds) and they're doing everything they can to frantically funnel as much money upwards while our economic system collapses on the rest of us.Matter of fact wei, the successful media personalities make most of their money from sponsorship, and advertising, which makes the companies they advertise loads of money.

Again, you do not have a right to the wealth and property of others. You dont have a right to a visa either. Sorry to break it to you, Wei, but you ain't getting shit.

Wei Wu Wei

10-14-2010, 08:07 AM

The current deficit is in the TRILLIONS. Nice try.

I know how much the deficit is. The top 1% alone own $21.9 Trillion

That's more than the bottom 90% (all of us) COMBINED.

This all according to the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances

What they have, is theirs, and no one else's, and if the state decides that the government has the right to take what is not theirs without their consent thats dictatorship.

Is any and all forms of taxation dictatorship? If you really think all taxes are dictatorship you are a fool but I don't think you believe that. These people have what they have because of the laws in place (many of which they influenced by purchasing lawmakers) which protect what they have. If they are benefiting from our social system, they should contribute back into it. Why do you so insist on protecting the very wealthy?

Ah yes the total welfare state where the government is the answer to everything.

Basic social programs that literally every other industrialized nation has are hardly a "welfare state". We are the wealthiest nation in the world, the people deserve the benefits of that.

Do you believe America is the greatest nation?
If so, who makes it the greatest nation? A few hundred wealthy families that own multi-national corporations and the majority of our assets? or the every day American who goes to work and sells his labor for far less than it's worth in order to produce goods and services that generate the wealth that makes our nation so powerful?

Matter of fact wei, the successful media personalities make most of their money from sponsorship, and advertising, which makes the companies they advertise loads of money.

They get their money from sponsorship which is why everyone is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of news entertainment. It's all about images, flash, flair, empty garbage that rake in the ratings.

They SAVE their money by actively pushing a pro-corporate message that benefits the very wealthy owners of these networks (and their highest paid members) at the expense of regular working class americans.

Again, you do not have a right to the wealth and property of others. You dont have a right to a visa either. Sorry to break it to you, Wei, but you ain't getting shit.

Ownership is purely symbolic.

BadCat

10-14-2010, 08:29 AM

blah blah blah...

You're an idiot, and you prove it with every post you make here.

CaughtintheMiddle1990

10-14-2010, 08:38 AM

Ownership is purely symbolic.

Are you nuts?

Sonnabend

10-14-2010, 08:52 AM

Is any and all forms of taxation dictatorship?To a great degree, yes. I pay a shitload each year and I am sick and tired of more of what I earn going in taxes. I earned it, I should be able to keep it. Less government, not more, less taxes, not more, and if the government was capable enough to do their job they are supposed to do, the taxes would be lower.

You do not have a right to the money I earn. Get a job.

If you really think all taxes are dictatorship you are a fool but I don't think you believe that. These people have what they have because of the laws in place (many of which they influenced by purchasing lawmakers) which protect what they have. If they are benefiting from our social system, they should contribute back into it. Why do you so insist on protecting the very wealthy? Because they earned it, and they should keep it, and not have to hand it to some twat who never worked a day in his or her life.

Basic social programs that literally every other industrialized nation has are hardly a "welfare state". We are the wealthiest nation in the world, the people deserve the benefits of that.Those "basic welfare programs" are abused to a fare thee well and money is handed left and right to those who who should not be given it. I see no reason why my tax dollars should go to some bum who never intends to work and uses the welfare money to buy drugs or other shit.

If they arent prepared to make the effort to go find work, or to even TRY, then fuck 'em, let 'em starve
.

Do you believe America is the greatest nation?

Yes.

If so, who makes it the greatest nation? A few hundred wealthy families that own multi-national corporations and the majority of our assets?Those corporations supply the jobs that feed and clothe millions.

or the every day American who goes to work and sells his labor for far less than it's worth in order to produce goods and services that generate the wealth that makes our nation so powerful?.,.or he or she can go into business for themselves and become wealthy, it's the American Dream. Many millionaires these days are self made.

They get their money from sponsorship which is why everyone is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of news entertainment.Your contempt for the majority of Americans is obvious..and disgusting.

It's all about images, flash, flair, empty garbage that rake in the ratings.Yep, and ratings means more advertising, means more money to companies large and small, means more profits, means more jobs.

Your point is....?

They SAVE their money by actively pushing a pro-corporate message that benefits the very wealthy owners of these networks (and their highest paid members) at the expense of regular working class americans. There is no "working class". Save me the Communist schtick.

Ownership is purely symbolic.I cordially invite you to go to any home in Texas, and say that, and then try to take the owner's property. You will find out very quickly what the Castle Doctrine means.

You do not have a right to the property and assets of others...they have a right to keep the benefits of what they have worked for and saved for.

There is a word for people like you.

Parasite.

NJCardFan

10-14-2010, 08:58 AM

Are you nuts?

Yes. And stupid too.

only 39% of the money has been used and there have been 750,045 reported jobs created.

Ah, I guess Wee Wee never took basic math. Allow me to help you out:

OK, the stimulus was $787,000,000,000. 39% of that is $306,930,000,000. Divide that by the 750,045 jobs "reportedly" created and what do we have? $409,215.45 per job. So, what you're saying is that 3/4 of a million $409K jobs were created? Do you even look at what you're saying? And you want to be a teacher yet you don't have a grasp on basic arithmetic? You are such a fucking lemming that it's funny. You buy into whatever drivel you're fed, don't you. Not only is the info you posted pure bullshit, I suppose a good chunk of those jobs were created in those fake districts too. Reported created. I can report that I saw Santa Clause flying in a UFO with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster but that doesn't make it so does it. Don't give me "reportedly" created. Give me concrete facts. Doesn't matter though. You're a loser and that's all that matters.

Gingersnap

10-14-2010, 09:52 AM

This is kind of a dupe but there's a lot of discussion here so I'll let it stand on it's own alongside the other thread.

Zathras

10-14-2010, 10:01 AM

Ownership is purely symbolic.

Really? Ok, give me your address so I can come take all your stuff. After all, since you think ownership is purely symbolic, you will have no problem with me coming and taking away everything you own.

FlaGator

10-14-2010, 10:05 AM

Really? Ok, give me your address so I can come take all your stuff. After all, since you think ownership is purely symbolic, you will have no problem with me coming and taking away everything you own.

He'll have you arrested by the cops, those symbols of authority :D

marv

10-14-2010, 11:01 AM

Don't fall for president hussein's "epiphany". Axelrod is THE mind behind this - and his qualification is that he knows public relations.

Klinton got re-elected because he had his own epiphany, and hussein is shooting for the same. But, based on hussein's campaign promises and his performance over the past twenty months, can he really be believed? I say no. His admission of mistakes is more like the career criminal pleading for leniency before a judge saying, "I promise not to do it again."

DUH!

Molon Labe

10-14-2010, 12:52 PM

I don't understand how people insist that the stimulus was a 'failure' when most of the money hasn't even been used yet

because the principle in practice is a failure. The numbers don't matter. You cannot stimulate an economy by infusing money into work projects.

Another thing. I'm finding that everywhere in your world are "constructs" and "symbolic" natures of things. Is there anything tangible in your world that isn't a system?

Any tangible idea will do.

lacarnut

10-14-2010, 02:18 PM

because the principle in practice is a failure. The numbers don't matter. You cannot stimulate an economy by infusing money into work projects.

Another thing. I'm finding that everywhere in your world are "constructs" and "symbolic" natures of things. Is there anything tangible in your world that isn't a system?

Any tangible idea will do.

Shovel ready projects was Obama battle cry for economic recovery on the campaign trail. Those shovel ready projects only account for 3%. Construction signs touting construction work is an old, wasteful and tired political trick that voters will see right through. Now, he admits there were no shovel ready projects. This turkey could give Clinton lessons on telling tall tales.

Constitutionally Speaking

10-14-2010, 08:08 PM

Where do you get the figure/idea that somehow providing a construction job for a worker fixing a highway is going to steal multiple other jobs from anyone?

Almost 30 years of making my living studying such things.

The tax money that is used to create that temp job was taken from research on potentially new breakthrough that would both better mankind and provide high paying jobs, or perhaps from the expansion of a new facility that would also have provided a high paying permanent job.

Every penny the government spends is taken from a FAR more productive use in the private sector.